2004(1) Supreme 880
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., Brijesh Kumar and S.B. Sinha, JJ.
Union of India -Appellant
versus
Naveen Jindal and Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2920 of 1996
With
Civil Appeal No. 453 of 2004
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15849 of 1994)
Decided on 23-1-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitor General, P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate, Hemant Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, A.D.N. Rao, Brajesh Kumar, Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, Amit Bhandari and Suman Jyoti Khaitan, Advocates.
Held : We hold that-(i) Right to fly the National Flag freely with respect and dignity is a fundamental right of a citizen within the meaning of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India being an expression and manifestation of his allegiance and feelings and sentiments of pride for the nation; (ii) The fundamental right to fly National Flag is not an absolute right but a qualified one being subject to reasonable restrictions under clause 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution of India; (iii) The Embles and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 regulate the use of the National Flag; (iv) Flag Code although is not a law within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India for the purpose of clause (2) of Article 19 thereof, it would not restrictively regulate the free exercise of the right of flying the national flag. However, the Flag Code to the extent it provides for preserving respect and dignity of the National Flag, the same deserves to be followed. (v) For the purpose of interpretation of the constitutional scheme and for the purpose of maintaining a balance between the fundamental/legal rights of a citizen vis-a-vis, the regulatory measures/restrictions, both Parts IV and IVA of the Constitution of India can be taken recourse to. (Para 84)
(ii) Interpretation of Statutes-Constitution of India-Constitution being a living organ, its ongoing interpretation is permissible-Supremacy of Constitution is essential to bring social changes in national polity evolved with passage of time-Interpretation of Constitution is a difficult task -While doing so, Constitutional Courts are not only required to take into consideration their own experience over the time, international covenants and treaties but also keeping the doctrine of flexibility in mind-Although interpretation of Constitution is primarily must be based on materials available in India, relevant rules of other countries can also be considered. (Paras 21, 38 and 39)
Judgment
V.N. Khare, CJI-Leave granted in the S.L.P.
2. In these appeals a short but an important question that arises for consideration is whether the right to fly the National Flag by Indian citizen is a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
3. Naveen Jindal, the respondent herein, is a Joint Managing Director of a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. He being in charge of the factory of the said Company situated at Raigarh in Madhya Pradesh was flying National Flag at the office premises of his factory. He was not allowed to do so by the Government officials on the ground that the same is impermissible under the Flag Code of India.
4. Questioning the said action, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that no law could prohibit flying of National Flag by Indian citizens. Flying of National Flag with respect and dignity being a fundamental right, the Flag Code which contains only executive instructions of the Government of India and, thus, being not a law, cannot be considered to have imposed reasonable restrictions in respect thereof within the meaning of clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
5. Before the High Court, the Appellant-Union of India raised the following contentions:
“1. That the Central Government is authorised to impose restrictions on the use of National Flag at any public place or building and can regulate the same by the authority vested in it under Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950;
2. That the restriction imposed by the Act and orders issued by the Government are constitutionally valid being reasonable restrictions on the Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
3. That the question of permitting free use of National Flag or to restrict its use is a matter of policy option available to the Parliament and to the Government. Since it is a policy option constitutionally permissible, the courts ought not to interfere with the same.”
6. The High Court after hearing the matter held : (1) The question as to whether the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1950 Act’, for the sake of brevity) have been violated or not is a matter which would fall for determination of the court of law and not by the executive; (2) The restrictions imposed by the Flag Code on flying the National Flag being not law within the meaning clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be construed to be a penal provision; (3) However, if contravention of any of those instructions and guidelines had been issued under the 1950 Act or under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1971 Act’), the same would constitute a penal office; (4) Referring to the debates held in the Constituent Assembly as also a passage from the book titled ‘Our National Flag’ by K.V. Singh, the High Court observed that the citizens were required to be educated by issue of Flag Code and the National Flag must be flown in a respectful manner and so long as a citizen of India does so, no restriction can be imposed on the basis of instructions contained in the Flag Code.
7. Before we proceed further it may be remembered that from time immemorial, people have laid down their lives with a view to salute their own Flag. What is so compelling in the piece of cloth called the National Flag, that people make even the supreme sacrifice for its sake? National Flag indisputably stands for the whole nation, its ideals, aspirations, its hopes and achievements.
8. “A National Flag” as pointed by Lt. Cdr. K.V. Singh in his book `Our National Flag’ is the most solemn symbol of a country. Be it a Head of the State, King or peasant, salutes it. A piece of cloth called the National Flag stands for the whole
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar
Indian Handicraft Emporium and Others v. Union of India and Others
A. Satya Phaneendra v. S.H.O. Kodad (PS) Nalgonda and Others
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Thakur Bharat Singh
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
R.D. Shetti v. International Airport Authority of India
S.C. Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India
Jagdish Saran and Others v. Union of India
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Another etc. v. Union of India and Another
Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Others
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India & Ors.
Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL and Others
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India & Ors.
Gajanan Visheshwar Birjur v. Union of India
Hindustan Times and Others v. State of U.P. and Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.